TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (10) TMI 249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... them as tool kits after screen printing the name of "Lucas TVS" and "Lucas Indian Service" on the pouch/kit. The case of the department is that they were doing it without intimating the department. It was pointed out that the respondents, therefore, are using the brand name of M/s. Lucas TVS, who is not entitled to the benefit of Notification 175/86. It was, therefore, the case of the department that the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the notification in view of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86. The respondent in their letter dated 30-6-1990, in response to the show cause notice issued by the department stated that they have not manufactured any tools with the brand name of the customers embossed on or affixed to the tools a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey manufacture the tools that are placed in the pouch. The pouches are purchased from outside. The pouch contains the marking of Lucas India, TVS Lucas etc. The same party makes other tools with their brand name, i.e. TEPCO. Notification 175/86 only precludes that the specified goods should not bear the brand name of the manufacturer and it is not eligible for exemption.The tools are specified goods but they do not bear the brand name, but only the pouch that bears the brand name. Pouch by itself is not specified goods. Therefore, they do not come within the mischief of Notification 175/86. I fully accept this point. I have also examined the samples during the PH. It is also a fact that this company has its own brand name, namely TEPCO. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appearing on packing material in which the same are contained Articles like writing paper/double sided carbon paper do not bear on them any brand name/trade name, but the same are identified by the trade/brand name appearing on their wrapper/carton/container. Thus in the instant case where the tools did not bear any brand/trade name thereon but a trade/brand name appeared on the container viz. plastic pouch, the goods qualified to be termed as branded goods. Thus the demand for duty was sustainable especially when the "tools" manufactured and marketed by the assessee bore their own trade mark, whereas those meant for their said buyer did not bear any brand/trade mark. Such branded goods were marketed by the brand owner himself and not by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was, therefore, pointed out that in order to come within the mischief of para 7, it should be shown that the respondent affixed such brand name on the goods. In this case, there is no brand name on the tools manufactured by the respondents, the brand name is found on the pouches. Therefore, the goods are not branded goods. Alternatively, he pointed out that even if the pouches contained the branded name of TVS Lucas, the respondents did not affix the same. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is now admitted that the tools manufactured by the respondents are not affixed with the brand name of TVS Lucas. But, the pouch is purchased by the respondents from outside. The respondents are not manufacturing the pouch....